The High Court refused a former lorry driver’s application to continue receiving his salary while he pursued a claim over the process that led to his dismissal. The ruling decided only the interlocutory injunction application; it did not determine whether the dismissal was lawful or fair.
The plaintiff, employed by Goode Concrete Limited, began proceedings after being told he would face a disciplinary process. He alleged that the procedures leading to his dismissal breached natural justice and fair procedures. The company purported to terminate his employment with effect from 11 October 2007.
By the time the application was heard, the disciplinary meeting had taken place and the plaintiff had been dismissed. He sought continuation until trial of an interim order requiring the company to keep paying his salary. He offered to remain available for work while undertaking not to enter the company’s premises.
The judge treated the requested order as mandatory in substance because continued salary payments depended on an ongoing employment relationship. The plaintiff therefore had to show a strong case to obtain interlocutory relief. The court found his contention that he had a right to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing was arguable, but only “merely stateable” and not strong enough for the order sought.
The judgment noted that the plaintiff had signed an employment contract containing a disciplinary procedure allowing accompaniment by a fellow employee, and that he had declined to bring a colleague to the hearing. The court also considered that he had received legal advice beforehand and had been invited to submit a written statement. It did not decide the ultimate merits of his claim.
The judge separately considered the balance of justice and convenience. Counsel had told the court the plaintiff would not seek reinstatement at trial, and that his principal remedies would be declaratory relief and possibly damages for emotional suffering. The court concluded that continued salary payments would postpone the plaintiff’s search for other work without preserving a realistic employment relationship. It also said the affidavits lacked details needed to assess the claimed financial or reputational harm from refusing the injunction.
The application was refused. The underlying action, including the plaintiff’s allegations about the disciplinary process, was not resolved by this interlocutory decision.